FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DERRICK MARTIN, No. 10-17754
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. Nos. 2:06-cv-02302-JAT
2:02-cr-00155-JAT-3
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Nevada, sitting by designation.
John Derrick Martin appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2255
ineffective assistance of counsel habeas petition. We affirm.1
To prevail in a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner
must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). Martin has done neither. Martin’s claim that his counsel should have
cross-examined Agent Goodman on Goodman’s “previous history” with Martin
fails because Martin had no previous history with Agent Goodman, and indeed
Martin appears to conflate Agent Goodman with Officer Donegan of the Nashville
Police Department. Martin’s claim that counsel’s failure to go to Nashville to
investigate the scene of the crime fails because his trial lawyer stated in an affidavit
that he had ample photographic and video evidence of the scene as well as reports
from the government witnesses, all of which counsel reviewed thoroughly.
Considering the evidence the government had against Martin, the district court
correctly concluded that Martin’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by
failing to investigate in person. Moreover, it was not an abuse of discretion for the
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we repeat them
here only as necessary to explain our decision.
2
district court to deny an evidentiary hearing on these claims because the claims
were vague, speculative, and conclusory.
AFFIRMED.
3